In a case of profound importance to the District government and DC
residential communities, a federal judge on April 12 affirmed the
constitutionality of the District's zoning regulations concerning
universities. The specific case involved the George Washington
University, its proposed 2000-2010 campus plan, and, indirectly, the
worst ongoing case of freewheeling negative community impact by an
institution in the city.

Having failed to secure total approval by the DC Board of Zoning
Adjustment of an ambitious 10-year campus plan projection, the
university sued the city and some of its officers, claiming to be exempt
from city regulation on constitutional grounds. Had this line of
reasoning prevailed, the city basically would have 1) no control over
its numerous large and impacting universities as they exist in the
larger community, 2) had its regulatory responsibilities severely
compromised, and 3) had its taxbase communities around universities,
already suffering from negative impact, left open to even further
encroachment.

The court decision affirmed that the District of Columbia has the
right to regulate the land use of universities, including the BZA's
capability to set an overall limit on the number of students. (An
overall GWU cap of 20,000 students has been reinforced by the decision.)
By normal inference, the BZA can also mandate that a certain percentage
of students be housed within campus boundaries. Evenhandedly, however,
the court ruled against a BZA requirement that 70% of undergraduates
must be housed within campus boundaries by a certain time, since it saw
"no reason to anticipate that GW will not honor its commitment to
construct, well before the expiration of the campus plan, additional
on-campus dormitories … to meet the Board's requirement."

GW Disputed City's Right to Regulate

The George Washington University is the first of the District's
numerous colleges to dispute the city's right or duty to regulate large
institutions. Georgetown University has filed a pending lawsuit to
dispute BZA findings regarding aspects of its own campus plan, including
an enrollment cap. Other universities are doubtless watching the two
cases closely. All DC universities are in the same DC Consortium of
Universities and share common interests and often the same land-use law
firms. It was imperative for the recovering city for it to win this
crucial GWU case. Now that the city is finally getting a professional
regulatory grip on its various components, it could scarcely afford to
have loose-cannon status conferred on one restless, important component
-- colleges and universities.

It Was Imperative to Win This Case

The judge also dismissed university claims that the requirement for
periodic campus plans and special-exception permission for specific
projects places more rigorous -- and therefore improper -- requirements
for university use. He added, "In order to prevail, GW must
establish that the zoning regulations it challenges are unconstitutional
in all circumstances. It has not done so." The judge also agreed
with the District's claim that colleges and universities "possess
unique characteristics" that justify different treatment.

Credit Due to FBA, ANC & Others

The Foggy Bottom Association and its ANC 2A worked long and hard on
this case, so important to the neighborhood's continued existence. The
Federation Legal Aid Foundation kept close track and advised on it as
well, and the Federation Impacted Communities Committee met as needed to
compare and consult on campus plans citywide -- the GW case being the
bellwether. Most credit, however, goes to the Office of the Corporation
Counsel, which assessed the importance of the contention, brought in a
special lead attorney, prepared excellent briefs and defended the case
in open court. Also commendable, and more basically so, was the DC Board
of Zoning Adjustment, which identified the important issues in this case
and had the fortitude to resist the legalistic casuistry of a powerful,
self-interested institution.

Washington's favorite and most with-it communications personality,
Mark Plotkin, will highlight the Federation's May 23 awards banquet. In
step with much of what the Federation stands for, Mr. Plotkin has been
an active participant on the District's political scene since the late
1960s. Following public school teaching stints in Chicago and the
District, Mr. Plotkin became Washington's top radio political affairs
host. He recently became the political commentator and analyst at radio
station WTOP. He served from 1981 until 1985 as a member of Advisory
Neighborhood Commission 3B, and chaired the commission for two years.

Mr. Plotkin has championed lower utility rates for consumers and
voter registration, and is widely known as an outspoken advocate of
District self-governance and voting representation in Congress. He
played a decisive role in negotiating the return of the District's city
hall, the John Wilson Building, to city control in 1999, and in the
adoption of the new DC license plates bearing the slogan "Taxation
Without Representation."

Mr. Plotkin is a powerful contributor to the Canadian Broadcasting
Company and makes appearances on CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, C-Span, and
Australian TV. He has been quoted in major publications throughout the
country, including the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Chicago
Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, the Christian Science
Monitor, Time, and the New Republic. In December 2000, Mr. Plotkin was
honored by the Washington chapter of the United Nations Association for
his work in promoting human rights through his advocacy of DC voting
rights. The list goes on. Based on his work for District interests, Mr.
Plotkin has been called a prime candidate for Governor of any eventual
New Columbia state.

In its contention with the Boys and Girls Town organization over the
charity's large proposed project on Capitol Hill, the Southeast Citizens
for Smart Development has incurred expenses of close to $25,000. (Story
below.) Getting in a stitch in time, the SCSD is holding an exciting
"Chili and Auction" on Sunday, June 2, at 1432 G Street, SE. A
number of city councilmembers will be on hand to help out, and the
affairs promises to be jolly as well as useful. This is a good chance to
have some fun on a Sunday afternoon. Hours are from 4 to 7 p.m.

In hearing evidence, as in hearing a joke, the worst failure is to
miss the point. In early May, US District Court Judge Henry Kennedy
ruled against three former Georgetown-Burleith ANC commissioners in a
five-year case concerning student voting in the District. The case
turned on legal temporary residence versus legal domicile or permanent
residence, for voting purposes. At stake are unspoken ramifications for
all DC taxbase residential communities that are impacted by
universities. In a departure from traditional practice, the judge held
that the temporary residence of seven or so months (taking into account
lengthy breaks) by students in the District constitutes primary
residence or domicile. In a parting shot he sentenced the ANC plaintiffs
to pay $22,000 in defendant legal costs, "unless they can show that
they cannot afford it."

The court failed to consider positively that home-state binding ties
such as permanent home addresses, families, car registration, frequent
returns home, most summer employment, and virtually all income
constitute permanent residence and demonstrate proper voting venue.
Ignoring these basics bodes ill for 1) democratic civic activism in the
District, 2) future student vs. permanent-resident taxpayer community
contentions, and 3) opposition to university political influence in the
city and the neighborhoods they impact upon.

Such an egregious mulct levied on elected officials for basically
doing their duty cannot but have an undemocratic chilling effect on
future ANC actions. Also the proviso that "unless they can show
that they cannot afford it" puts a time bomb into the important
community-university-impact mix in the District. ANC or other officials
likely "can afford," with difficulty, multi-thousand-dollar
levies, while students can always convincingly plead inability to pay.
Ergo, what's to lose by suing officials, associations, or individuals on
all sides? Nothing, with the Judge Kennedys around, and the situation
can metastasize. Tellingly, as this case percolated up through District
courts, Senior DC Court of Appeals Judge George R. Gallagher emphasized
during testimony the legal domicile issue as being decisive. The ACLU
(American Civil Liberties Union) supported the ANC commissioners'
positions, as a licit exercise of free speech.

The issue is not dead, and the Kennedy decision represents loss of a
round. As long as a transient, fleetingly agglomerated element without
interest in host neighborhoods or the city can en masse skew elections
and overcome permanent-resident interests, the issue will be a live one,
over and over.

The District of Columbia Building Industry Association, on May 9,
gave awards for "significant contributions to the District of
Columbia" to three individuals, all of whom interface with the
organized residential taxbase communities:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has established an emergency
operations center in the District to cope with attacks on the capital
city. The agency has strengthened its capacity to rush food, medicine,
heavy equipment, communications equipment, and hazardous material
cleanup crews to the city in case of terrorist attacks.

New trees need extra water during the first three years to live. If
there has not been a deep soaking rain during the past weeks, slowly
water your new street tree with a hose for 1-2 hours a week, or slowly
pour two gallons of water around the tree 2-3 times a week. Especially
during drought conditions, the city's newly planted 4,000 street trees
need your help.

Want to be where the action is? Dissatisfied with the way incumbent
Federation officers and Board members are performing? Want to form an
independent slate? A chance to achieve all of the above will be afforded
all delegates from associations in good standing at the June 25 Assembly
election meeting.

As usual a slate of officers and Board members willing to serve will
be presented, in order to ensure that every office has a candidate.
Also, nominations will be called for from the floor, and any delegate or
group of delegates may be nominated or self-nominated. This year the
presented slate will simply be the incumbent officers and Board members.
Candidates who receive the most votes, naturally, win. In the case of
Board candidates, delegates vote for ten persons out of, say 14
candidates, and the ten persons with most votes from the 14 choices win.

Councilmember Kathy Patterson's Committee on the Judiciary will hold
a hearing on Thursday, June 13, at 10 a.m., prior to drafting
legislation on surveillance cameras. The hearing will be in the council
chamber of the Wilson Building.

The Federation has collaborated with the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU) to urge legislation to define parameters for the new and
burgeoning surveillance technology, which can easily, if misused, impact
negatively on citizens' privacy rights. Interested delegates
representing organizations will receive five minutes for testimony at
the hearing; individuals will receive three minutes. Federation
association witnesses wanting talking points may contact Ann Loikow,
363-6658.

The DC Board of Zoning Adjustment ruled on May 7 that it is revoking
permits for a complex of four sizable contiguous group houses that Boys
and Girls Town is trying to build on Capitol Hill. The citizen residents
opposing the development, the Southeast Citizens for Smart Development (SDCD),
claim the developer charity is trying to mislead the neighborhood and
the city by calling the four group homes separate facilities, when it
fact they comprise a unit. Such units, inter alia, may not be built
within 500 feet of an existing community-based facility under DC law.
Permanent-resident opponents, along with Councilmember Sharon Ambrose,
note that the community is too fragile to support the group home, and
also cite the area's open-air drug markets. Prominent Washington
attorney Andrea Ferster is representing the organized citizens.

Mr. Michael McGill, chief attorney for Girls and Boys Town,
announced, with possibly premature bravado, that "This is a minor
skirmish in a major war [sic]. We will appeal the decision and plan to
win the war." Andrea Ferster said, "Our appeal is a legal
argument. It is a question about whether a development is going to evade
plain and existing zoning principles."

Evenhandedly, the BZA agreed with the later legal argument, at least
to the point of requiring the developer to apply for a special exception
building permit if it wished to proceed with the project. This entails a
public comment period and additional zoning hearings. The hearings will
come at a time when public awareness of the ins and outs of the proposed
installation is increasing, due to the efforts of the citizen SCSD.
Community leaders addressed the Federation at its April Assembly.
Expected at the June Assembly (May is awards banquet month) will be Boys
and Girls Town representatives, to present their side of the case --
including reasons for a reported SLAPP suit (Suit Lodged Against Public
Participations) lodged against protesting community leaders earlier on.

This proposed major entry into a fragile neighborhood reportedly has
been undertaken with all-too-typical developer aggressiveness, combined
with all-too-usual mega-charity canting. If the charity should be proven
guilty of fraud in the application process by regulatory agencies and
eventually courts, the four-house property could be available for normal
apartment or neighborhood-upgrading residential home site purpose. If,
as SCSD contends, the site is worth more than Boys and Girls Town paid
for and into it, the charity could stand to profit from induced changes
in its plans.

The Urban Forestry Administration of the DC Department of
Transportation has marked 3,150 locations for tree plantings in all
wards throughout the city. The GCA Casey Trees Endowment Fund has marked
850 more locations in Wards 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The new trees are to have
been planted by April 30, 2002.

Fifty-plus witnesses supported the Urban Forest Preservation Act of
2001, the "Tree Bill," on December 20, 2001. That bill is
still under consideration by the city council. Delegates with an
interest in the important tree issue should send a letter or E-mail to
Councilmember Carol Schwartz.

The roiling property assessment issue has touched most residential
property owners in the District, in the sense that the touch is on.
Incidents of assessment increases range upwards of 167% (on two
delegates' $1 million-plus homes in Spring Valley) to whole
neighborhoods being assessed upward by 57% and more are rife. The
process is unscientific at best, and comes at a time when residential
business real estate tax rates have been reduced substantially.

To address community concerns regarding the new city move,
Councilmember Jack Evans will hold a public oversight hearing on the
District of Columbia's property tax assessment process and property tax
rates. The hearing will be held on Thursday, May 23, at 2 p.m., in Room
412 of the Wilson Building, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.

Participating witnesses representing organizations will likely have
five minutes to speak; individuals will have three minutes. The
Federation will be represented by a tax expert and several supporting
witnesses from the Board. Associations may wish to consider fielding
testimony and witnesses at this important hearing. Talking points will
be duly circulated for the possible use of associations.

Aide memoire: Property assessment evaluations are made by the DC
Office of Taxes and Revenue, by an often dubious process. The tax rate
-- how many cents or dollars per $100 of assessment amounts must be paid
in real estate taxes -- is fixed by the city council. At present it is
94¢ per $100 of assessed value. One element of relief that the city
council can extend to taxbase homeowners is a lowering of the 94¢ rate.

Washington Gas, the District's supplier of natural gas, has applied
to the Public Service Commission for allowed increases in its rates for
delivery and charges for gas services. On February 17, People's Counsel
Elizabeth Noel filed a complaint with the Public Service Commission on
behalf of DC ratepayers, calling for an investigation into whether
Washington Gas's existing rates are too high in light of current
conditions. "Since 1994, the last time the PSC set WG's rates,
significant declines in WG's cost of services, and improving economic
conditions have allowed the company to easily meet its authorized rate
of return. However, WG's current financial statistics clearly suggest
that it is high time for WG to share the benefits of synergy savings and
strong earnings with DC taxpayers," the People's Counsel noted.

The Public Service Commission has now scheduled three community
hearings concerning the basic rates, charges, and terms and conditions
of service the Washington Gas Light Company, District of Columbia
Division. WGL wants to increase existing charges by $16.3 million, a 6.3
percent revenue increase. WGL requests authority to earn a 9.73 percent
rate of return, including a return on common equity of 12.25 percent.

A besetting reality in residential neighborhoods that abut or are
near to universities is serious parking problems. These are caused in
large measure by a superabundance of cars owned by renters in local
group houses. The following article from the Burleith Newsletter
articulates the problem.

Why Register Your Car in DC?
Dr. Peter Pulsifer (Burleith)

DC law requires anyone housing or operating a motor vehicle in DC for
more than thirty days to obtain a DC registration for the vehicle. There
are certain exceptions, such as for members of Congress and their
personal staff, the President, the Vice President, and Cabinet members.
But most people are required to get either DC tags or a reciprocity
sticker indicating that they have registered. This requirement is not
just a parking regulation! It applies whether you park on the street or
in a garage. The Metropolitan Police have been cracking down on
registration scofflaws in the Northwest community of Glover Park, and
the enforcement is now getting started in Burleith.

DC registration is required because the system only works properly
when everyone participates. Each out-of-state car increases the burden
on those of us who properly register our cars. The consequences include:

Increased taxes. Scofflaws' registration fees go to another state,
even though the DC government must still provide the same highway and
public safety services to the out-of-state vehicle.

Increased pollution and reduced safety. Each state has its own
inspection requirement, and many of these are less strict than the
District's. For example, Maryland has no annual safety inspection -- the
only mandatory inspection is when the vehicle is bought and sold.
Out-of-state cars are also harder to hold accountable to DC vehicle
regulations (although they can still be booted and towed).

Increased insurance costs. The cost of insurance is based on the
total number of vehicles registered in a given area. It has been
estimated that, if all DC vehicles were properly registered, our
insurance bills would drop an average of 40 percent. (Many car owners
don't realize that failure to house a vehicle in its "home"
state is also insurance fraud; the insurance company could refuse to pay
a claim if it discovers the fraud.)

Reduced jury pool. The names of potential jurors are drawn from
vehicle registration records. Fewer DC-registered cars means more
difficult jury selection and more frequent calls to serve for the rest
of us.

At one time, a barrier to transferring was the one-time DC excise tax
based on the car's value, but this has long been eliminated (of course,
the excise tax on new cars remains). It is both good citizenship and
good sense to register your car in D.C.

Community groups frequently rely on city regulations that require
large developments have an environmental impact statement. In DC, this
requirement is often honored in the breach.

An interesting insight into one part of the practice is afforded by a
recent Zoning Commission order (Order 955, Consolidated Planned Unit
Development and Zoning Map Amendment for Station Place, February 11,
2002). Under "Environmental Issues" the order notes:

"103. The Task Force, Norman Williams, and Richard Blackford
requested that an environmental impact statement ("EIS") be
required for the project.

"104. The OP testified at the public hearing that an EIS is not
required. The OP testified that the DC Environmental Policy Act exempts
properties within the Central Employment Area from the EIS requirement.
The Site is within the boundaries of the Central Employment Area, as
defined in the Zoning Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan and,
therefore, no EIS is required."